D&D General Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

[FrogReaver]

@clearstream I’m just working off of your conversation with @kenada in posts 1966 and 1967 above with the ranger and the mountain and the dragon.

Your situation you’ve depicted above has a Ranger. It has a mountain. It has a Dragon.

The Ranger tries to recall specific lore about historical events and legends (the same way it’s done in any game) by saying some words to the table/GM.

How does that matter get settled/resolved?

As I'm sure you are aware, in many games it's relevant whether the details the Ranger's player cited were already established. Those kinds of details may not matter for a 'story now' game but they do matter for others.

Alternatively, if they want to look for a Treant (that are wise and old by default so it’s unclear why that became a point of contention?) in the forest below the mountain’s tree-line, how does the matter of “a Treant exists/does not exist in these forested mountains” get settled/resolved?

Same as above. The whole scenario has context and in many games the DM considers the whole context (or at least more context than you've given) in determining what happens. How can one talk about how something is handled when not enough relevant info is given?

If they do find a Treant, how does “does this Treant recall specific lore about historical events/legends sufficient to resolve the Ranger’s pondering” get resolved?

It depends on alot more context than has been provided.

The answer to these questions are quite relevant to the thread. There is a Gamism approach to resolve these matters. There is a Simulationism approach to resolve these matters. There is a Story Now approach to resolve these matters.

They all diverge significantly.

Can it be possible that some approaches require more context than other approaches to resolve? In a Story Now approach the player is expected to be able to introduce details into the fiction and play is moved forward via the player getting what they want on a good roll or getting what they want while facing some complication on worst rolls or possibly not getting what they want while facing a complication on the worst rolls. Thus, the 'Story Now' approach doesn't require as much 'context' to determine what happens in the fiction. Though there can be a bit of arbitrariness about what particular ficitonal consequence is chosen when one is needed. For example, you are hit by the archer but is it in either the arm or the leg? How does a 'Story Now' GM decide?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Your situation you’ve depicted above has a Ranger. It has a mountain. It has a Dragon.

The Ranger tries to recall specific lore about historical events and legends (the same way it’s done in any game) by saying some words to the table/GM.

How does that matter get settled/resolved?

This was to @clearstream, but I'll give my answer too.

First of, the player doesn't start by spouting specific lore before veracity of it has been established. It would be like the player stating that their character slays a troll before an attack roll has even been made. (Or they could say that, but that's basically just the character making stuff up.) Presumably what they actually want to do is establish whether they know any historic legends regarding whereabouts of dragons. So they communicate that.

Then the GM (if they have not already done so whilst setting up the world) determines some locations for dragons. Presumably the players in this instance are interested in nearest ones, so determining those/that will suffice. This determination is done based on the knowledge the GM has regarding the setting and behaviour of dragons. Then the GM determines how esoteric the knowledge is, thus setting the DC. (If we are talking about active dragons, not very. They are rather noticeable and also a big deal so the word gets around.) Then the player rolls the relevant skill (history in this instance,) with an advantage if there is reasons to warrant it. Appropriate background might be one, and having dragons as favoured enemy would definitely suffice.

Then based on the result and the DC, the GM will inform the player what their character can recall. I usually use some sort of degree of success for knowledge checks, so barely beating the DC might result "you have heard some rumours about people having seen dragons in near location X" type of an answer whilst a higher result would warrant more specific knowledge possibly including the names, ages and colours of the dragons in question, and some information regarding their behaviour and past deeds.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This was to @clearstream, but I'll give my answer too.

First of, the player doesn't start by spouting specific lore before veracity of it has been established. It would be like the player stating that their character slays a troll before an attack roll has even been made. (Or they could say that, but that's basically just the character making stuff up.) Presumably what they actually want to do is establish whether they know any historic legends regarding whereabouts of dragons. So they communicate that.

Then the GM (if they have not already done so whilst setting up the world) determines some locations for dragons. Presumably the players in this instance are interested in nearest ones, so determining those/that will suffice. This determination is done based on the knowledge the GM has regarding the setting and behaviour of dragons. Then the GM determines how esoteric the knowledge is, thus setting the DC. (If we are talking about active dragons, not very. They are rather noticeable and also a big deal so the word gets around.) Then the player rolls the relevant skill (history in this instance,) with an advantage if there is reasons to warrant it. Appropriate background might be one, and having dragons as favoured enemy would definitely suffice.

Then based on the result and the DC, the GM will inform the player what their character can recall. I usually use some sort of decree of success for knowledge checks, so barely beating the DC might result "you have heard some rumours about people having seen dragons in near location X" type of an answer whilst a higher result would warrant more specific knowledge possibly including the names, ages and colours of the dragons in question, and some information regarding their behaviour and past deeds.

This is 100% the Sim answer to this question (either variety).

It's certainly not the Story Now answer.

I don't think it's even posed properly for Gamism.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is 100% the Sim answer to this question (either variety).

It's certainly not the Story Now answer.

Yes, absolutely.

I don't think it's even posed properly for Gamism.

I don't understand what this means.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

5e uses consequence-resolution. Read the PHB 174 game text in conjunction with the DMG 237 game text. Per RAW, you roll when a meaningful consequence is possible. Per RAW, when success and failure are possible but there is no meaningful consequence, the character succeeds in 10x the time. Something else that is easy to overlook is that consequence is known going in. (I will edit my post to make that clearer.)

I don't follow. That is, I get what you are saying about only rolling if there is a meaningful consequence, but I completely don't get the bolded part... To use the safe example, how can the player know that there isn't going to be any papers in the safe going in? If he knew that, why would he even be there? Obviously only the GM knows these things, and the players are, in effect, playing to discover what is in the GM's notes. Sure, at the instant when it comes to a head the GM can say "Oh, yeah, you eventually get it open, there's nothing inside." instead of demanding a check, but I don't think that's really very consequential! I don't think it is what you are trying to say, so I'm just going to see what your explanation is, so I can understand the whole thing thx.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Okay, I see a possible missing piece here. Why have the players chosen to open that safe? We're here, why? Unless I picture the party going about opening random safes, the desired consequence - find what you were looking for in the safe - is what is resolved.

Hang on! Lets back up and talk about how these games play out. This is a game with conflict resolution. So the PC's goal is to resolve the conflict by getting the papers (and doing something or other with them, the details of that don't matter at this point). NO TABLE AT ALL is going to play some game with this procedure and decree "Oh, any old successful check will demand this resolution." I mean, come on. It isn't ANY OLD SAFE that has the papers in it that are needed, it is ONLY Old Man Caruther's safe, because he's the embezzler! See? Fictional position has to concur with any outcome, you cannot just play fast and loose with logic. So, no, the party cannot go around opening random safes! If they don't know which safe to open, OK, maybe they try a few, but that doesn't really feel much like the sort of play this type of game is normally aimed at. If such a situation DOES exist, I would suggest that the resolution should be done at a different level of granularity (IE you check to see if SEARCHING THE TOWN will produce the result you need).

Beyond whatever events kicked off play in session 1, DM does not decide if there is a situation: that's up to the group. Consequences are known - due to player choices and big picture elements - going in. DM doesn't choose stakes, they're chosen by the group.

I don't really understand what you are getting at here. The GM in 5e absolutely sets the terms upon which play rests. Indeed it may be that player choices are consequent, maybe. Very often the GM is driving the whole thing, soup to nuts. I agree that at some social contract of the table level the group must 'choose', at least in a passive "We didn't veto this" sense. At the scale of a given check, the player clearly decided that he would go along with the situation and assert an intent that is compatible with the GM's fiction (or not I suppose). I mean, yes, in a game like 5e the group can 'fizzle' the situation by just walking away. I'd note that such would be impossible in any sort of a narrativist game focus, as that would be equally as consequent as taking action. (IE I walk away from the safe, I have decided that clearing my name is not important to me.).

 

[Krachek]

When a DM ask a check, he obviouly accept to flow with the result.
Otherwise he can simply describe the success or the failure, or the impossibility to make an attempt.

The safe cracking is a tricky example.
in a hurry cracking a safe is usually a hard task, but the Dm can still decide that the attempt is a success, a failure because it need a least an hour, or ask a check with a DC.
And that is not related with the content of the safe.
The next problem is at what time the DM decide the content of the safe!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There are two interpretations of this.

One is fairly trivial: the GM handles the backstory, the players declare actions for their PCs. Most RPGs works this way. Apocalypse World, Tunnels & Trolls, RuneQuest, Burning Wheel, the Dragonlance modules for AD&D - they all work this way.

The other is false: if a player declares I open the safe to look for the documents, and the GM's notes have determined that the safe is empty, then one true description of what the character is doing is opening the safe that doesn't have what they want in it. And it is the GM who has decided that that description is true, in virtue of their authoring of their notes, not the player.

The only person entertaining that idea is you. I'm not. @Campbell is not. We are talking about who establishes what is at stake in an action declaration, and whether or not an action declaration resolves a situation. The fact that a player can decide their PC wants to look for some documents in a safe tells us nothing about the things Campbell and I are talking about. We're talking about what happens next - how is it established (i) whether or not the PC opens the safe and (ii) if they do, what they find in there, and (iii) whether or not they open it, and whatever they find, whether some further consequence results.

I've already given one example in this thread where they do: the Knock spell gets in the way of resolving the opening of a safe to try and find documents in a conflict resolution fashion.

Right, so again I put forward the example of my own thinking in designing a game:

In HoML the process is that the player, when faced with an obstacle during a challenge, states what action they wish to take, and what they intend to accomplish by taking that action (what the character's intent, in the context of plot, is). The reason is pretty clear in the context of this discussion. The player is entirely within their rights, given that it follows reasonably from the already established fiction, that opening the safe will produce some papers which provide evidence that Old Caruthers is the embezzler. Now, this is a system where challenges have a structure, and accomplishing the overall goal (say clearing my name) thus requires beating the whole challenge (it might even require more than that, potentially) BUT certainly the player is in their rights to establish that success at this point has positive consequences which they will have declared. Now, this can also be a two-edged sword, and that's part of the intent of the design as well. The GM may well decide, if you fail, that can't go looking for the papers someplace else, they either don't exist, or they're in that darn safe and you cannot open it! You will accrue a failure in your challenge, and it might even spell the end of the whole enterprise!

I admit this is different from say PbtA where a 6- might result in the safe not being opened, but also probably in a hard move by the GM. PbtA doesn't really talk about INTENT, it just confronts NEED with each scene, so it equally establishes what the character's intent AUGHT TO BE, but then HoML is a game about how the PCs, who are at least potentially folk heroes or even mythic figures, battle fate to achieve their immortality, and not so much about how they resolve their inner personality conflicts (though those are certainly fair game to be brought onto the table as obstacles or motives).

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, absolutely.


I don't understand what this means.

The problem is not well posed to talk about it in gamist terms.

 

[Krachek]

For the content of the safe that the PCs are looking for:

For usual DnD
The Dm rely on his notes. hand made or published.
The Dm decide, overwriting his notes for any good reasons he may have, or simply continuing on an improvisation.
The Dm rely on random, rolling secretly or in front of the players, and justify the random result.
The Dm may also get influenced by players ideas, and follow players ideas or allow random to settle the content of the safe.

there is no mechanic in DnD to force the Dm to follow players ideas. But it is simple to add ones. Some faith points that allow a player ( not a PC) to alter the reality and settle some elements of the fiction. It could be nice, especially for kids.